Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 991	control, N = 501	treatment, N = 491	p-value2
age	98	49.93 ± 13.20 (25 - 74)	50.03 ± 13.30 (25 - 74)	49.83 ± 13.24 (28 - 73)	0.941
Unknown		1	1	0
gender	99				0.692
f		73 (74%)	36 (72%)	37 (76%)
m		26 (26%)	14 (28%)	12 (24%)
occupation	99				0.776
day_training		2 (2.0%)	2 (4.0%)	0 (0%)
full_time		12 (12%)	6 (12%)	6 (12%)
homemaker		8 (8.1%)	5 (10%)	3 (6.1%)
other		2 (2.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (4.1%)
part_time		17 (17%)	8 (16%)	9 (18%)
retired		25 (25%)	12 (24%)	13 (27%)
self_employ		4 (4.0%)	2 (4.0%)	2 (4.1%)
student		2 (2.0%)	0 (0%)	2 (4.1%)
t_and_e		2 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)
unemploy		25 (25%)	14 (28%)	11 (22%)
marital	99				0.692
cohabitation		1 (1.0%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.0%)
divore		10 (10%)	7 (14%)	3 (6.1%)
in_relationship		1 (1.0%)	1 (2.0%)	0 (0%)
married		25 (25%)	13 (26%)	12 (24%)
none		54 (55%)	25 (50%)	29 (59%)
seperation		3 (3.0%)	2 (4.0%)	1 (2.0%)
widow		5 (5.1%)	2 (4.0%)	3 (6.1%)
edu	99				0.636
bachelor		26 (26%)	9 (18%)	17 (35%)
diploma		19 (19%)	12 (24%)	7 (14%)
hd_ad		3 (3.0%)	2 (4.0%)	1 (2.0%)
postgraduate		8 (8.1%)	4 (8.0%)	4 (8.2%)
primary		5 (5.1%)	2 (4.0%)	3 (6.1%)
secondary_1_3		13 (13%)	8 (16%)	5 (10%)
secondary_4_5		23 (23%)	12 (24%)	11 (22%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)	1 (2.0%)
fam_income	99				0.921
10001_12000		4 (4.0%)	1 (2.0%)	3 (6.1%)
12001_14000		5 (5.1%)	2 (4.0%)	3 (6.1%)
14001_16000		5 (5.1%)	2 (4.0%)	3 (6.1%)
16001_18000		3 (3.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.1%)
18001_20000		4 (4.0%)	3 (6.0%)	1 (2.0%)
20001_above		19 (19%)	9 (18%)	10 (20%)
2001_4000		15 (15%)	10 (20%)	5 (10%)
4001_6000		11 (11%)	5 (10%)	6 (12%)
6001_8000		9 (9.1%)	5 (10%)	4 (8.2%)
8001_10000		7 (7.1%)	3 (6.0%)	4 (8.2%)
below_2000		17 (17%)	9 (18%)	8 (16%)
medication	99	88 (89%)	46 (92%)	42 (86%)	0.320
onset_duration	97	14.81 ± 10.53 (0 - 56)	16.11 ± 11.46 (1 - 56)	13.43 ± 9.36 (0 - 35)	0.212
Unknown		2	0	2
onset_age	96	35.36 ± 14.31 (10 - 65)	33.91 ± 13.15 (10 - 58)	36.87 ± 15.42 (15 - 65)	0.314
Unknown		3	1	2
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 991	control, N = 501	treatment, N = 491	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	99	3.09 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)	3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)	3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)	0.567
recovery_stage_b	99	17.94 ± 2.70 (9 - 24)	17.72 ± 2.75 (9 - 23)	18.16 ± 2.66 (13 - 24)	0.417
ras_confidence	99	30.13 ± 5.01 (18 - 45)	29.62 ± 4.30 (19 - 40)	30.65 ± 5.64 (18 - 45)	0.308
ras_willingness	99	12.01 ± 2.00 (7 - 15)	11.82 ± 1.92 (8 - 15)	12.20 ± 2.08 (7 - 15)	0.343
ras_goal	99	17.48 ± 2.99 (11 - 25)	17.26 ± 2.84 (12 - 24)	17.71 ± 3.16 (11 - 25)	0.453
ras_reliance	99	13.19 ± 2.90 (7 - 20)	13.06 ± 2.65 (8 - 18)	13.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 20)	0.650
ras_domination	99	9.90 ± 2.32 (3 - 15)	10.24 ± 2.25 (3 - 15)	9.55 ± 2.37 (3 - 15)	0.141
symptom	99	30.31 ± 9.60 (14 - 56)	31.32 ± 9.83 (14 - 55)	29.29 ± 9.34 (15 - 56)	0.294
slof_work	99	22.58 ± 4.73 (10 - 30)	22.40 ± 4.25 (13 - 30)	22.76 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)	0.711
slof_relationship	99	25.49 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)	24.80 ± 5.76 (13 - 35)	26.20 ± 5.99 (11 - 35)	0.237
satisfaction	99	20.54 ± 6.93 (5 - 35)	19.08 ± 6.45 (5 - 31)	22.02 ± 7.15 (5 - 35)	0.034
mhc_emotional	99	11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	10.74 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)	11.55 ± 4.04 (4 - 18)	0.300
mhc_social	99	14.95 ± 5.52 (5 - 30)	15.00 ± 5.46 (7 - 30)	14.90 ± 5.64 (5 - 27)	0.927
mhc_psychological	99	21.99 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)	21.54 ± 5.96 (9 - 36)	22.45 ± 6.72 (6 - 36)	0.478
resilisnce	99	16.68 ± 4.53 (6 - 30)	16.18 ± 4.12 (6 - 24)	17.18 ± 4.91 (7 - 30)	0.273
social_provision	99	13.67 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)	13.12 ± 2.39 (8 - 20)	14.22 ± 3.19 (5 - 20)	0.054
els_value_living	99	17.14 ± 3.03 (5 - 25)	16.60 ± 2.44 (12 - 22)	17.69 ± 3.47 (5 - 25)	0.072
els_life_fulfill	99	12.72 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)	11.88 ± 3.17 (5 - 19)	13.57 ± 3.42 (4 - 20)	0.012
els	99	29.86 ± 5.87 (9 - 45)	28.48 ± 4.86 (18 - 38)	31.27 ± 6.50 (9 - 45)	0.017
social_connect	99	26.55 ± 9.22 (8 - 48)	27.60 ± 8.25 (8 - 45)	25.47 ± 10.07 (8 - 48)	0.252
shs_agency	99	14.46 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	13.68 ± 4.57 (3 - 21)	15.27 ± 5.36 (3 - 24)	0.116
shs_pathway	99	16.49 ± 3.97 (4 - 24)	15.96 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)	17.04 ± 4.10 (4 - 24)	0.177
shs	99	30.96 ± 8.57 (7 - 48)	29.64 ± 8.02 (13 - 45)	32.31 ± 8.98 (7 - 48)	0.122
esteem	99	12.70 ± 1.75 (10 - 20)	12.90 ± 1.67 (10 - 18)	12.49 ± 1.83 (10 - 20)	0.246
mlq_search	99	15.10 ± 3.21 (3 - 21)	14.78 ± 3.04 (6 - 21)	15.43 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)	0.318
mlq_presence	99	13.56 ± 4.14 (3 - 21)	13.34 ± 3.59 (5 - 21)	13.78 ± 4.66 (3 - 21)	0.603
mlq	99	28.66 ± 6.47 (6 - 42)	28.12 ± 5.72 (12 - 40)	29.20 ± 7.18 (6 - 42)	0.407
empower	99	19.39 ± 4.30 (6 - 30)	18.86 ± 3.93 (11 - 30)	19.94 ± 4.62 (6 - 30)	0.213
ismi_resistance	99	14.68 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)	14.30 ± 2.15 (10 - 19)	15.06 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)	0.145
ismi_discrimation	99	11.47 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)	12.18 ± 2.90 (5 - 19)	10.76 ± 3.28 (5 - 20)	0.024
sss_affective	99	10.00 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)	10.42 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)	9.57 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)	0.255
sss_behavior	99	9.60 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)	10.18 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)	9.00 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)	0.129
sss_cognitive	99	8.11 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)	8.60 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	7.61 ± 3.48 (3 - 18)	0.185
sss	99	27.71 ± 10.34 (9 - 54)	29.20 ± 10.21 (9 - 54)	26.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)	0.148
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.16	0.166	2.84, 3.48
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.140	0.235	-0.601, 0.322	0.554
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.134	0.246	-0.348, 0.616	0.587
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.422	0.353	-0.270, 1.11	0.236
	Pseudo R square	0.026
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.7	0.401	16.9, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.443	0.570	-0.674, 1.56	0.438
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.194	0.556	-1.28, 0.894	0.727
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.536	0.799	-1.03, 2.10	0.505
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.6	0.724	28.2, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.03	1.029	-0.983, 3.05	0.317
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.839	0.766	-0.662, 2.34	0.278
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.944	1.103	-1.22, 3.11	0.396
	Pseudo R square	0.033
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.8	0.285	11.3, 12.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.384	0.406	-0.411, 1.18	0.346
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.621	0.302	-1.21, -0.029	0.044
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.726	0.435	-0.127, 1.58	0.101
	Pseudo R square	0.035
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.3	0.442	16.4, 18.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.454	0.628	-0.776, 1.69	0.471
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.405	0.503	-1.39, 0.582	0.424
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.46	0.725	0.039, 2.88	0.048
	Pseudo R square	0.037
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.409	12.3, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.267	0.581	-0.873, 1.41	0.648
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.375	0.412	-0.433, 1.18	0.367
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.00	0.594	-0.161, 2.17	0.097
	Pseudo R square	0.036
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.2	0.321	9.61, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.689	0.457	-1.58, 0.206	0.134
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.267	0.433	-1.12, 0.582	0.540
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.45	0.623	0.228, 2.67	0.023
	Pseudo R square	0.032
symptom	(Intercept)	31.3	1.352	28.7, 34.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.03	1.921	-5.80, 1.73	0.292
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.382	1.105	-2.55, 1.78	0.731
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.899	1.593	-4.02, 2.22	0.575
	Pseudo R square	0.017
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.4	0.669	21.1, 23.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.355	0.951	-1.51, 2.22	0.710
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.183	0.666	-1.49, 1.12	0.784
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.127	0.959	-1.75, 2.01	0.895
	Pseudo R square	0.002
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.8	0.823	23.2, 26.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.40	1.170	-0.889, 3.70	0.233
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.11	0.772	-2.63, 0.400	0.155
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.51	1.113	-0.670, 3.69	0.180
	Pseudo R square	0.031
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.1	0.981	17.2, 21.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.94	1.394	0.208, 5.67	0.037
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.905	1.081	-1.21, 3.02	0.406
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.130	1.557	-3.18, 2.92	0.934
	Pseudo R square	0.045
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.7	0.542	9.68, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.811	0.771	-0.699, 2.32	0.295
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.366	0.491	-0.596, 1.33	0.459
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.456	0.707	-1.84, 0.930	0.522
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.0	0.813	13.4, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.102	1.156	-2.37, 2.16	0.930
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.642	0.867	-1.06, 2.34	0.462
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.461	1.248	-2.91, 1.99	0.713
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.5	0.937	19.7, 23.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.909	1.332	-1.70, 3.52	0.496
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.783	0.963	-1.10, 2.67	0.420
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.536	1.387	-3.25, 2.18	0.700
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.629	14.9, 17.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.00	0.894	-0.749, 2.76	0.264
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.173	0.717	-1.23, 1.58	0.810
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.32	1.032	-0.701, 3.35	0.205
	Pseudo R square	0.038
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.1	0.406	12.3, 13.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.10	0.578	-0.028, 2.24	0.058
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.520	0.477	-1.46, 0.416	0.280
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.604	0.687	-0.743, 1.95	0.382
	Pseudo R square	0.054
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.436	15.7, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.09	0.619	-0.120, 2.31	0.080
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.265	0.489	-0.693, 1.22	0.590
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.136	0.703	-1.24, 1.51	0.848
	Pseudo R square	0.036
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.9	0.459	11.0, 12.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.69	0.652	0.414, 2.97	0.011
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.649	0.414	-0.162, 1.46	0.122
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.337	0.596	-1.51, 0.831	0.574
	Pseudo R square	0.061
els	(Intercept)	28.5	0.820	26.9, 30.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.79	1.166	0.500, 5.07	0.019
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.887	0.756	-0.595, 2.37	0.246
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.144	1.090	-2.28, 1.99	0.895
	Pseudo R square	0.057
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.6	1.326	25.0, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.13	1.884	-5.82, 1.56	0.261
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.12	1.176	-1.18, 3.42	0.345
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.99	1.694	-6.31, 0.331	0.083
	Pseudo R square	0.033
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.705	12.3, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.59	1.002	-0.378, 3.55	0.116
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.155	0.690	-1.20, 1.51	0.823
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.608	0.994	-1.34, 2.56	0.543
	Pseudo R square	0.034
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.0	0.554	14.9, 17.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.08	0.787	-0.462, 2.62	0.172
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.142	0.534	-0.904, 1.19	0.792
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.179	0.769	-1.69, 1.33	0.817
	Pseudo R square	0.017
shs	(Intercept)	29.6	1.195	27.3, 32.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.67	1.699	-0.663, 6.00	0.119
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.294	1.120	-1.90, 2.49	0.794
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.439	1.614	-2.72, 3.60	0.787
	Pseudo R square	0.028
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.227	12.5, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.410	0.322	-1.04, 0.222	0.206
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.108	0.319	-0.733, 0.517	0.736
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.357	0.459	-0.542, 1.26	0.441
	Pseudo R square	0.011
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.8	0.456	13.9, 15.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.649	0.649	-0.623, 1.92	0.319
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.129	0.589	-1.02, 1.28	0.827
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.390	0.847	-2.05, 1.27	0.646
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.3	0.583	12.2, 14.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.436	0.829	-1.19, 2.06	0.600
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.270	0.643	-0.990, 1.53	0.676
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.036	0.926	-1.85, 1.78	0.969
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq	(Intercept)	28.1	0.930	26.3, 29.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.08	1.322	-1.51, 3.68	0.414
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.424	1.091	-1.71, 2.56	0.698
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.400	1.570	-3.48, 2.68	0.800
	Pseudo R square	0.006
empower	(Intercept)	18.9	0.608	17.7, 20.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.08	0.864	-0.614, 2.77	0.214
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.206	0.558	-0.888, 1.30	0.713
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.569	0.804	-2.14, 1.01	0.482
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.356	13.6, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.761	0.506	-0.231, 1.75	0.135
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.078	0.463	-0.830, 0.985	0.867
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.185	0.667	-1.12, 1.49	0.782
	Pseudo R square	0.027
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.2	0.445	11.3, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.42	0.633	-2.67, -0.184	0.026
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.424	0.453	-1.31, 0.464	0.353
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.370	0.653	-0.910, 1.65	0.573
	Pseudo R square	0.043
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.510	9.42, 11.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.849	0.725	-2.27, 0.573	0.244
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.044	0.502	-0.939, 1.03	0.931
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.13	0.722	-2.54, 0.291	0.125
	Pseudo R square	0.038
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.532	9.14, 11.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.18	0.756	-2.66, 0.302	0.121
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.105	0.543	-1.17, 0.959	0.847
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.583	0.782	-2.12, 0.950	0.459
	Pseudo R square	0.036
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.60	0.515	7.59, 9.61
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.988	0.732	-2.42, 0.447	0.180
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.597	0.527	-0.437, 1.63	0.262
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.19	0.760	-2.68, 0.297	0.122
	Pseudo R square	0.041
sss	(Intercept)	29.2	1.439	26.4, 32.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.02	2.046	-7.03, 0.993	0.143
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.533	1.325	-2.06, 3.13	0.689
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.89	1.909	-6.63, 0.856	0.136
	Pseudo R square	0.043
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.16 (95% CI [2.84, 3.48], t(145) = 19.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.32], t(145) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.62], t(145) = 0.55, p = 0.586; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.11], t(145) = 1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.72 (95% CI [16.93, 18.51], t(145) = 44.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.56], t(145) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.89], t(145) = -0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.10], t(145) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.74])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.62 (95% CI [28.20, 31.04], t(145) = 40.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.05], t(145) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.34], t(145) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.11], t(145) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.61])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.82 (95% CI [11.26, 12.38], t(145) = 41.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.18], t(145) = 0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.21, -0.03], t(145) = -2.06, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.01])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.58], t(145) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [16.39, 18.13], t(145) = 39.07, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.69], t(145) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.58], t(145) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [0.04, 2.88], t(145) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.01, 0.91])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.06 (95% CI [12.26, 13.86], t(145) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.41], t(145) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.18], t(145) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.17], t(145) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.73])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.24 (95% CI [9.61, 10.87], t(145) = 31.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.21], t(145) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.58], t(145) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [0.23, 2.67], t(145) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.10, 1.18])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.32 (95% CI [28.67, 33.97], t(145) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-5.80, 1.73], t(145) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.55, 1.78], t(145) = -0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.22], t(145) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.23])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.40 (95% CI [21.09, 23.71], t(145) = 33.48, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.22], t(145) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.12], t(145) = -0.27, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.01], t(145) = 0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.43])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.80 (95% CI [23.19, 26.41], t(145) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.89, 3.70], t(145) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.40], t(145) = -1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [-0.67, 3.69], t(145) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.64])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.16, 21.00], t(145) = 19.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.94, 95% CI [0.21, 5.67], t(145) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [0.03, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.02], t(145) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.92], t(145) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.68, 11.80], t(145) = 19.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.32], t(145) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.33], t(145) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.93], t(145) = -0.64, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.41, 16.59], t(145) = 18.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.37, 2.16], t(145) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.38])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.34], t(145) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.99], t(145) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.35])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.54 (95% CI [19.70, 23.38], t(145) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.70, 3.52], t(145) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.67], t(145) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.25, 2.18], t(145) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.33])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [14.95, 17.41], t(145) = 25.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.76], t(145) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.58], t(145) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 3.35], t(145) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.32, 13.92], t(145) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.24], t(145) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-9.47e-03, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.42], t(145) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.95], t(145) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.60 (95% CI [15.75, 17.45], t(145) = 38.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.31], t(145) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.22], t(145) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.51], t(145) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [10.98, 12.78], t(145) = 25.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [0.41, 2.97], t(145) = 2.59, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.13, 0.90])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.46], t(145) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.83], t(145) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.48 (95% CI [26.87, 30.09], t(145) = 34.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.79, 95% CI [0.50, 5.07], t(145) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.08, 0.86])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.37], t(145) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.99], t(145) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.34])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.60 (95% CI [25.00, 30.20], t(145) = 20.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-5.82, 1.56], t(145) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 3.42], t(145) = 0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.99, 95% CI [-6.31, 0.33], t(145) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.03])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.30, 15.06], t(145) = 19.41, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.38, 3.55], t(145) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.51], t(145) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.56], t(145) = 0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.87, 17.05], t(145) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.62], t(145) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.19], t(145) = 0.27, p = 0.791; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.33], t(145) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.64 (95% CI [27.30, 31.98], t(145) = 24.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-0.66, 6.00], t(145) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.49], t(145) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-2.72, 3.60], t(145) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.43])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.90 (95% CI [12.46, 13.34], t(145) = 56.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.22], t(145) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.52], t(145) = -0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.26], t(145) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.80])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.89, 15.67], t(145) = 32.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.92], t(145) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.28], t(145) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.27], t(145) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.39])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.34 (95% CI [12.20, 14.48], t(145) = 22.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.06], t(145) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.50])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.53], t(145) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.78], t(145) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -8.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.12 (95% CI [26.30, 29.94], t(145) = 30.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 3.68], t(145) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.56])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.56], t(145) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-3.48, 2.68], t(145) = -0.25, p = 0.799; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.40])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.67, 20.05], t(145) = 31.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.77], t(145) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.30], t(145) = 0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.01], t(145) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.24])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.30 (95% CI [13.60, 15.00], t(145) = 40.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.75], t(145) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.99], t(145) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.49], t(145) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.59])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.18 (95% CI [11.31, 13.05], t(145) = 27.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.67, -0.18], t(145) = -2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.46], t(145) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.65], t(145) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.42, 11.42], t(145) = 20.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.57], t(145) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.03], t(145) = 0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.54, 0.29], t(145) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.08])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.14, 11.22], t(145) = 19.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(145) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.96], t(145) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.95], t(145) = -0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.25])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.60 (95% CI [7.59, 9.61], t(145) = 16.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.45], t(145) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.63], t(145) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.30], t(145) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.20 (95% CI [26.38, 32.02], t(145) = 20.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.02, 95% CI [-7.03, 0.99], t(145) = -1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.06, 3.13], t(145) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-6.63, 0.86], t(145) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.08])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	478.742	487.794	-236.371	472.742
recovery_stage_a	random	6	479.590	497.693	-233.795	467.590	5.152	3	0.161
recovery_stage_b	null	3	738.090	747.142	-366.045	732.090
recovery_stage_b	random	6	742.189	760.293	-365.095	730.189	1.901	3	0.593
ras_confidence	null	3	900.076	909.128	-447.038	894.076
ras_confidence	random	6	898.199	916.303	-443.099	886.199	7.877	3	0.049
ras_willingness	null	3	617.882	626.934	-305.941	611.882
ras_willingness	random	6	617.246	635.350	-302.623	605.246	6.636	3	0.084
ras_goal	null	3	756.559	765.611	-375.280	750.559
ras_goal	random	6	755.721	773.824	-371.860	743.721	6.839	3	0.077
ras_reliance	null	3	727.032	736.084	-360.516	721.032
ras_reliance	random	6	721.334	739.438	-354.667	709.334	11.698	3	0.008
ras_domination	null	3	674.844	683.895	-334.422	668.844
ras_domination	random	6	673.352	691.456	-330.676	661.352	7.491	3	0.058
symptom	null	3	1,059.259	1,068.311	-526.629	1,053.259
symptom	random	6	1,062.372	1,080.475	-525.186	1,050.372	2.887	3	0.409
slof_work	null	3	863.025	872.076	-428.512	857.025
slof_work	random	6	868.749	886.853	-428.375	856.749	0.275	3	0.965
slof_relationship	null	3	924.805	933.857	-459.402	918.805
slof_relationship	random	6	925.819	943.923	-456.909	913.819	4.986	3	0.173
satisfaction	null	3	993.643	1,002.695	-493.821	987.643
satisfaction	random	6	993.673	1,011.777	-490.836	981.673	5.970	3	0.113
mhc_emotional	null	3	791.692	800.744	-392.846	785.692
mhc_emotional	random	6	796.236	814.340	-392.118	784.236	1.456	3	0.692
mhc_social	null	3	928.644	937.696	-461.322	922.644
mhc_social	random	6	933.989	952.093	-460.995	921.989	0.655	3	0.884
mhc_psychological	null	3	968.626	977.678	-481.313	962.626
mhc_psychological	random	6	973.530	991.634	-480.765	961.530	1.096	3	0.778
resilisnce	null	3	863.213	872.265	-428.606	857.213
resilisnce	random	6	862.481	880.585	-425.241	850.481	6.732	3	0.081
social_provision	null	3	734.026	743.078	-364.013	728.026
social_provision	random	6	733.193	751.297	-360.597	721.193	6.833	3	0.077
els_value_living	null	3	748.824	757.876	-371.412	742.824
els_value_living	random	6	750.147	768.251	-369.073	738.147	4.677	3	0.197
els_life_fulfill	null	3	748.720	757.772	-371.360	742.720
els_life_fulfill	random	6	745.429	763.533	-366.714	733.429	9.291	3	0.026
els	null	3	925.251	934.303	-459.626	919.251
els	random	6	923.110	941.213	-455.555	911.110	8.142	3	0.043
social_connect	null	3	1,064.257	1,073.309	-529.129	1,058.257
social_connect	random	6	1,064.345	1,082.448	-526.172	1,052.345	5.913	3	0.116
shs_agency	null	3	881.489	890.541	-437.745	875.489
shs_agency	random	6	882.945	901.049	-435.473	870.945	4.544	3	0.208
shs_pathway	null	3	804.586	813.638	-399.293	798.586
shs_pathway	random	6	808.637	826.740	-398.318	796.637	1.950	3	0.583
shs	null	3	1,035.685	1,044.736	-514.842	1,029.685
shs	random	6	1,038.297	1,056.401	-513.149	1,026.297	3.387	3	0.336
esteem	null	3	566.966	576.018	-280.483	560.966
esteem	random	6	571.161	589.264	-279.580	559.161	1.805	3	0.614
mlq_search	null	3	770.957	780.009	-382.479	764.957
mlq_search	random	6	775.909	794.012	-381.954	763.909	1.048	3	0.790
mlq_presence	null	3	831.316	840.368	-412.658	825.316
mlq_presence	random	6	836.712	854.815	-412.356	824.712	0.605	3	0.895
mlq	null	3	977.803	986.854	-485.901	971.803
mlq	random	6	983.028	1,001.131	-485.514	971.028	0.775	3	0.855
empower	null	3	827.918	836.970	-410.959	821.918
empower	random	6	832.136	850.240	-410.068	820.136	1.783	3	0.619
ismi_resistance	null	3	699.132	708.183	-346.566	693.132
ismi_resistance	random	6	701.688	719.792	-344.844	689.688	3.443	3	0.328
ismi_discrimation	null	3	747.620	756.672	-370.810	741.620
ismi_discrimation	random	6	747.993	766.097	-367.997	735.993	5.627	3	0.131
sss_affective	null	3	786.855	795.907	-390.428	780.855
sss_affective	random	6	785.736	803.840	-386.868	773.736	7.119	3	0.068
sss_behavior	null	3	800.828	809.880	-397.414	794.828
sss_behavior	random	6	801.827	819.931	-394.914	789.827	5.001	3	0.172
sss_cognitive	null	3	792.447	801.498	-393.223	786.447
sss_cognitive	random	6	792.353	810.456	-390.176	780.353	6.094	3	0.107
sss	null	3	1,093.605	1,102.657	-543.803	1,087.605
sss	random	6	1,092.767	1,110.870	-540.383	1,080.767	6.839	3	0.077

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	50	3.16 ± 1.17		49	3.02 ± 1.17		0.554	0.141
recovery_stage_a	2nd	27	3.29 ± 1.16	-0.136	25	3.58 ± 1.16	-0.563	0.380	-0.286
recovery_stage_b	1st	50	17.72 ± 2.84		49	18.16 ± 2.84		0.438	-0.202
recovery_stage_b	2nd	27	17.53 ± 2.75	0.088	25	18.50 ± 2.74	-0.155	0.201	-0.445
ras_confidence	1st	50	29.62 ± 5.12		49	30.65 ± 5.12		0.317	-0.353
ras_confidence	2nd	27	30.46 ± 4.57	-0.287	25	32.44 ± 4.53	-0.609	0.119	-0.675
ras_willingness	1st	50	11.82 ± 2.02		49	12.20 ± 2.02		0.346	-0.333
ras_willingness	2nd	27	11.20 ± 1.80	0.538	25	12.31 ± 1.79	-0.091	0.027	-0.962
ras_goal	1st	50	17.26 ± 3.12		49	17.71 ± 3.12		0.471	-0.234
ras_goal	2nd	27	16.86 ± 2.85	0.209	25	18.77 ± 2.83	-0.544	0.016	-0.988
ras_reliance	1st	50	13.06 ± 2.89		49	13.33 ± 2.89		0.648	-0.170
ras_reliance	2nd	27	13.43 ± 2.55	-0.239	25	14.70 ± 2.52	-0.878	0.073	-0.809
ras_domination	1st	50	10.24 ± 2.27		49	9.55 ± 2.27		0.134	0.404
ras_domination	2nd	27	9.97 ± 2.18	0.156	25	10.73 ± 2.18	-0.693	0.211	-0.446
symptom	1st	50	31.32 ± 9.56		49	29.29 ± 9.56		0.292	0.490
symptom	2nd	27	30.94 ± 7.99	0.092	25	28.00 ± 7.88	0.309	0.185	0.706
slof_work	1st	50	22.40 ± 4.73		49	22.76 ± 4.73		0.710	-0.140
slof_work	2nd	27	22.22 ± 4.15	0.072	25	22.70 ± 4.11	0.022	0.675	-0.191
slof_relationship	1st	50	24.80 ± 5.82		49	26.20 ± 5.82		0.233	-0.480
slof_relationship	2nd	27	23.69 ± 5.03	0.381	25	26.60 ± 4.97	-0.136	0.037	-0.997
satisfaction	1st	50	19.08 ± 6.94		49	22.02 ± 6.94		0.037	-0.709
satisfaction	2nd	27	19.99 ± 6.26	-0.218	25	22.80 ± 6.22	-0.187	0.107	-0.678
mhc_emotional	1st	50	10.74 ± 3.83		49	11.55 ± 3.83		0.295	-0.438
mhc_emotional	2nd	27	11.11 ± 3.28	-0.197	25	11.46 ± 3.24	0.049	0.695	-0.192
mhc_social	1st	50	15.00 ± 5.75		49	14.90 ± 5.75		0.930	0.031
mhc_social	2nd	27	15.64 ± 5.14	-0.194	25	15.08 ± 5.10	-0.055	0.693	0.170
mhc_psychological	1st	50	21.54 ± 6.63		49	22.45 ± 6.63		0.496	-0.248
mhc_psychological	2nd	27	22.32 ± 5.87	-0.213	25	22.70 ± 5.81	-0.067	0.818	-0.102
resilisnce	1st	50	16.18 ± 4.45		49	17.18 ± 4.45		0.264	-0.364
resilisnce	2nd	27	16.35 ± 4.06	-0.063	25	18.68 ± 4.03	-0.542	0.040	-0.843
social_provision	1st	50	13.12 ± 2.87		49	14.22 ± 2.87		0.058	-0.599
social_provision	2nd	27	12.60 ± 2.65	0.282	25	14.31 ± 2.63	-0.046	0.021	-0.927
els_value_living	1st	50	16.60 ± 3.08		49	17.69 ± 3.08		0.080	-0.583
els_value_living	2nd	27	16.86 ± 2.80	-0.141	25	18.09 ± 2.78	-0.213	0.114	-0.655
els_life_fulfill	1st	50	11.88 ± 3.24		49	13.57 ± 3.24		0.011	-1.083
els_life_fulfill	2nd	27	12.53 ± 2.77	-0.415	25	13.88 ± 2.74	-0.199	0.079	-0.867
els	1st	50	28.48 ± 5.80		49	31.27 ± 5.80		0.019	-0.974
els	2nd	27	29.37 ± 4.99	-0.310	25	32.01 ± 4.93	-0.260	0.057	-0.923
social_connect	1st	50	27.60 ± 9.37		49	25.47 ± 9.37		0.261	0.480
social_connect	2nd	27	28.72 ± 7.98	-0.253	25	23.60 ± 7.88	0.421	0.021	1.154
shs_agency	1st	50	13.68 ± 4.98		49	15.27 ± 4.98		0.116	-0.605
shs_agency	2nd	27	13.83 ± 4.35	-0.059	25	16.03 ± 4.31	-0.291	0.070	-0.837
shs_pathway	1st	50	15.96 ± 3.92		49	17.04 ± 3.92		0.172	-0.534
shs_pathway	2nd	27	16.10 ± 3.41	-0.070	25	17.00 ± 3.37	0.019	0.339	-0.446
shs	1st	50	29.64 ± 8.45		49	32.31 ± 8.45		0.119	-0.629
shs	2nd	27	29.93 ± 7.30	-0.069	25	33.04 ± 7.21	-0.173	0.125	-0.732
esteem	1st	50	12.90 ± 1.60		49	12.49 ± 1.60		0.205	0.324
esteem	2nd	27	12.79 ± 1.56	0.086	25	12.74 ± 1.56	-0.197	0.903	0.042
mlq_search	1st	50	14.78 ± 3.23		49	15.43 ± 3.23		0.319	-0.282
mlq_search	2nd	27	14.91 ± 3.06	-0.056	25	15.17 ± 3.05	0.114	0.761	-0.112
mlq_presence	1st	50	13.34 ± 4.12		49	13.78 ± 4.12		0.600	-0.177
mlq_presence	2nd	27	13.61 ± 3.73	-0.110	25	14.01 ± 3.70	-0.095	0.699	-0.162
mlq	1st	50	28.12 ± 6.58		49	29.20 ± 6.58		0.414	-0.257
mlq	2nd	27	28.54 ± 6.05	-0.101	25	29.23 ± 6.02	-0.006	0.684	-0.162
empower	1st	50	18.86 ± 4.30		49	19.94 ± 4.30		0.214	-0.511
empower	2nd	27	19.07 ± 3.69	-0.098	25	19.58 ± 3.65	0.172	0.617	-0.242
ismi_resistance	1st	50	14.30 ± 2.52		49	15.06 ± 2.52		0.135	-0.420
ismi_resistance	2nd	27	14.38 ± 2.39	-0.043	25	15.32 ± 2.39	-0.145	0.156	-0.522
ismi_discrimation	1st	50	12.18 ± 3.15		49	10.76 ± 3.15		0.026	0.826
ismi_discrimation	2nd	27	11.76 ± 2.78	0.246	25	10.70 ± 2.75	0.032	0.172	0.611
sss_affective	1st	50	10.42 ± 3.61		49	9.57 ± 3.61		0.244	0.445
sss_affective	2nd	27	10.46 ± 3.15	-0.023	25	8.49 ± 3.12	0.568	0.025	1.036
sss_behavior	1st	50	10.18 ± 3.76		49	9.00 ± 3.76		0.121	0.570
sss_behavior	2nd	27	10.07 ± 3.32	0.051	25	8.31 ± 3.29	0.333	0.057	0.852
sss_cognitive	1st	50	8.60 ± 3.64		49	7.61 ± 3.64		0.180	0.492
sss_cognitive	2nd	27	9.20 ± 3.22	-0.297	25	7.02 ± 3.19	0.296	0.015	1.085
sss	1st	50	29.20 ± 10.18		49	26.18 ± 10.18		0.143	0.602
sss	2nd	27	29.73 ± 8.75	-0.106	25	23.83 ± 8.65	0.470	0.016	1.178

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(139.30) = -0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.33)

2st

t(146.10) = 0.88, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(133.30) = 0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.57)

2st

t(145.89) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.48)

ras_confidence

1st

t(115.83) = 1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.07)

2st

t(146.97) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.52 to 4.47)

ras_willingness

1st

t(115.84) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.19)

2st

t(146.98) = 2.23, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.09)

ras_goal

1st

t(119.54) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.70)

2st

t(146.88) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.47)

ras_reliance

1st

t(113.74) = 0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.42)

2st

t(146.72) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.66)

ras_domination

1st

t(130.98) = -1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.21)

2st

t(145.94) = 1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.96)

symptom

1st

t(107.31) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-5.84 to 1.77)

2st

t(142.12) = -1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.42)

slof_work

1st

t(113.23) = 0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.24)

2st

t(146.60) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.75)

slof_relationship

1st

t(111.15) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.72)

2st

t(145.79) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (0.17 to 5.66)

satisfaction

1st

t(117.78) = 2.11, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.18 to 5.70)

2st

t(146.98) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.61 to 6.23)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(110.00) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.34)

2st

t(145.05) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.14)

mhc_social

1st

t(116.16) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.19)

2st

t(146.99) = -0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.37 to 2.25)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(114.54) = 0.68, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.55)

2st

t(146.86) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.83 to 3.57)

resilisnce

1st

t(119.53) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.77)

2st

t(146.88) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.54)

social_provision

1st

t(121.26) = 1.91, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.25)

2st

t(146.73) = 2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.16)

els_value_living

1st

t(118.65) = 1.77, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.32)

2st

t(146.94) = 1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.76)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(109.89) = 2.59, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.98)

2st

t(144.98) = 1.77, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.87)

els

1st

t(110.58) = 2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.47 to 5.10)

2st

t(145.46) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.08 to 5.36)

social_connect

1st

t(109.41) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-5.86 to 1.60)

2st

t(144.58) = -2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-9.47 to -0.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(112.63) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.57)

2st

t(146.43) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.18 to 4.57)

shs_pathway

1st

t(112.06) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.64)

2st

t(146.22) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.76)

shs

1st

t(111.11) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.70 to 6.03)

2st

t(145.77) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.87 to 7.08)

esteem

1st

t(134.54) = -1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.23)

2st

t(145.90) = -0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.80)

mlq_search

1st

t(127.54) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.93)

2st

t(146.13) = 0.30, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.93)

mlq_presence

1st

t(117.77) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.08)

2st

t(146.98) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.44)

mlq

1st

t(121.18) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.70)

2st

t(146.74) = 0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.63 to 3.99)

empower

1st

t(110.44) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.79)

2st

t(145.37) = 0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(128.18) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.76)

2st

t(146.08) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.26)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(114.13) = -2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-2.68 to -0.17)

2st

t(146.79) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.57 to 0.46)

sss_affective

1st

t(112.79) = -1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.29 to 0.59)

2st

t(146.47) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-3.69 to -0.25)

sss_behavior

1st

t(114.28) = -1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.32)

2st

t(146.82) = -1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.58 to 0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(114.41) = -1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-2.44 to 0.46)

2st

t(146.84) = -2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.94 to -0.42)

sss

1st

t(110.53) = -1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-7.07 to 1.04)

2st

t(145.43) = -2.45, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-10.67 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 2.18, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.07)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(70.08) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.49)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(59.55) = 2.24, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.19 to 3.38)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(59.55) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.73)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(61.57) = 2.01, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.10)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(58.43) = 3.21, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.24)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(68.48) = 2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.08)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(55.12) = -1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.59 to 1.02)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(58.17) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.33)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(57.08) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.01)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(60.60) = 0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.48 to 3.03)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.49) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.93)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(59.72) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.99)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(58.85) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.25)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(61.56) = 2.00, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(62.53) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(61.07) = 0.79, p = 0.868, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.42)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.44) = 0.72, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.17)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.79) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.32)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(56.19) = -1.53, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-4.32 to 0.58)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(57.85) = 1.06, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.20)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.55) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.07)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(57.06) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(70.98) = 0.75, p = 0.911, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.91)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(66.26) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.96)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(60.59) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.57)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(62.49) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.29)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(56.72) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.80)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(66.66) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.23)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.64) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.89)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(57.93) = -2.07, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.13 to -0.04)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(58.72) = -1.22, p = 0.456, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.44)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(58.79) = -1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.50)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(56.76) = -1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.12 to 0.41)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(73.10) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.63)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(68.68) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.92)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(58.92) = 1.09, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.38)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(58.92) = -2.05, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.23 to -0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(60.79) = -0.80, p = 0.853, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.61)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(57.88) = 0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.20)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(67.20) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.60)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(54.79) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.84)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(57.63) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.15)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(56.62) = -1.44, p = 0.312, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.44)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(59.89) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.08)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.07) = 0.74, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.35)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(59.08) = 0.74, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.38)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(58.27) = 0.81, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(60.79) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.61)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(61.69) = -1.08, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.44)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(60.33) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.25)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.02) = 1.56, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.35) = 1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.41)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(55.79) = 0.95, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.48)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(57.34) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.54)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.06) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(56.60) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.54)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(69.52) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(65.14) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.31)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(59.89) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.56)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(61.65) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.62)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(56.28) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.33)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(65.51) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.07) = -0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.49)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(57.41) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(58.14) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.99)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(58.21) = 1.13, p = 0.529, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.66)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(56.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.20)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance